The Palatka daily news. (Palatka, Fla.) 1884-1888, 1887-03-13
OKEECHOBEE HYDRAULICS.

Apparent ErrOrs In Mr. Duvnl's Pamphlet
The Canal InsAs4usse.
To the Editor of the News
Some months ago a pamphlet was pub
lished in Jacksonville entitled IAN Ar
ticle ON the hydraulics Of the OkeechObee
Region" 1t was written to show that
IF canal be cut in Lake Okeechobee,
30 as to discharge into the Gulf q quantity
Of water 10 of foot in depth and equal
in extent to the inundated territory. that
territory would in due time become re-
claimed" and since any canal. small or
large, would fill this requirement in q
Disston Canal would also do so. In view
of tbs Drainage Committees report. re-
Gently published, and the Cover
nor's action thereon, it is only right
that this article, coming from an eminent
source, should receive the criticism
which it deserves.
The article in question contains much
valuable and interesting information. and
its argument Ii ingenious. More than
this cannot be said in its favor. To the
casual reader il il obscure and misleading.
A close examination shows vital errors
| in its reasoning.
For example, it is represented that the
wet and dry seasons are very sharply
| defined in South Florida; that the rainy
season begins with May and ends with
October, and the dry season begins with
| November and ends with April. Excep-
tons to the rule are called phenomenal. y
| Upon the strength Of this the monthly
| DISCHARGE of Okeechobee, which obvi-
/ ously varies enormously with the eleva-
ton Of it's surface, ia averaged and call
ed an ''unit Of discharge" The rain
| fall and evaporation are treated in the
same way. Definite values are then
given to these quantities. The monthly
rainfall is placed at g OF a foot over the
entire drainage area, the monthly evapO-
ration at .5 Of a foot, the monthly dis
charge from OkeechObee through natu
ural channels at .05 Of a foot, and the
monthly discharge through the Disston
canal in another place shown to be les
than 10 Of a foot. What would be ths
result of any irregularity in the season
say 4 inches of rain in February. or 10 in
ches in August? 1t is evident that the bal
ance of hydrodynamic forces here repre-
sented as permanent would be at one,
destroyed, and the argument as a practi
cal argument leading to practical con
clusiOn, is of no value.
Upon the subject Of evaporation tn
article is very unsatisfactory. In on
place it says lit is regarded by the Uni
ted States Engineers, as may be seen b,
their reports that in any part of F1ori
da the annual evaporation exceeds tn
annual rainfall" This is a very seriou
condition of things il true, There is evi
IDENTIFY some mistake here.
Evaporation is the great unknown fac
tor in the Okeechobee problem. IL
were once settled all would be plain. Il
assume it at one-fifth Of a foot per montl
during the wet season, and nothing a
all during the dry is evidently contrar,
to the facts in the case.
1t is not necessary to extend this crit
cism. Enough has been written, it j
hoped, to show clearly that an article ''oI
Hydraulics of the Okeechobee region
proves nothing for the utility Of tn
DisstOn Canal. This canal has a croe
section of less than 1876 square feet, an,
current of two and one-hah miles al
hour. The drainage area is Q, 900 squar
miles. 1t seems hardly necessary +
show that waterway of this size cal
not now or twenty years from now pro
duce any permanent effect upon tn
level Of Lake OkeechObee.
DAVIS b. LEWIS.
Seville. Fla, March IL, 1887.